What I meant was that if this new film had come out years ago (before the Zeitgeist you keep mentioning that has stock images of warfare used in almost every documentary about the subject of their study) and not during the current economic crisis, it would not have been able to make such a positive, poignant impact. I don't think Zeitgeist (and especially not the Addendum) is "wrapped up in gore" to make a point...

You've blown out of proportion how much this film puts blame on others. Blame is certainly applicable to each and every one of us (including "THE OTHER"), for not questioning our most fundamental ideas about money and profit, but what is so great about this new film is that it offers information that allows YOU to decide how you will react. The film never refers to those who've run the system as "vile people" - misguided and misinformed, sure. I honestly don't think that George W. Bush purposely does all of the terrible things he does because he is a vile person, he MUST honestly believe that what he's doing is for the betterment of mankind but is simply blissfully ignorant of the logical cause and effect chains rippling through spacetime because of his decisions. It is the same way with these bankers and big economic players - there really hasn't been any alternative economic system to what we have today, and they just don't have the foresight and flexibility to see that they are dealing with a sinking ship. Cognitive bias prevents them from accepting the idea that things would work out better for everyone under a new system.

If you think more laws are needed to control our greed, you're still thinking in terms of our old system which is literally thousands of years old and showing its age. The much better, and much easier choice is to begin work on the new system - new currencies especially - which by the very nature of their design prevent greed from becoming a necessity. Laws are outdated up->down decisions made by politicians, but the work is going to have to be done inward->outward by concerned folk at the most basic levels. If all you think this movie does is "feed us gore, dirt and lies to make us feel good" you have a very pessimistic outlook on the amazingly positive outcomes that this film attempts to achieve.

It's much easier to solve anything if we don't care who the hell is blaming who and just get to work on fixing the future we've paved for ourselves by using the vast amount of information, technology and expertise at our own fingertips.

I can respect your point of view, Millsley, but we must now agree that we disagree. If, while watching the movies, you were nodding, I felt angry because it showed everything I don't want to see anymore.

Perhaps it motivated you to react but it didn't motivated me because I was immediately reacting negatively to images that I find negative.

We are different and we must accept that. For example, I find the greatest book ever written to be St Exupery's The Little Prince. A children's book about a little boy living on a planet so little that he can see a sunset all the time by just moving his chair.

It could be a question of age; I am much older than you. But then ... I have loved The Little Prince ever since I read it as a teenager.

I am glad you enjoyed the book, Millsley and I am glad Baidawi enjoy this forum. Isn't it nice to be friends?

You see, after what happened to me as a teenager, I became a very bitter young man. I thought: There is no difference between Gandhi and Hitler; they were both pursuing what they thought was right.

But then, The Little Prince told me this: It is what he did for his rose that made it unique in the world. Following that, I try to make everything unique in my world. My plane has a photo of my father inside, my sailboat has a Morroccan coin under the mast, etc. Everything is done with a meaning, perhaps a supertitious meaning but it is no one else's religion or belief; it is my own.

For example I believe that if I throw a plastic bag in the sea when I sail, a god of the sea will be furious and cause a storm! So, I never throw overboard anything that is not bio-degradable. I like the supertition because I like to respect the environment.

Giving positive value to everything is the way to enjoy everything. I once said that I hope to die before my wife because I couldn't possibly think of living without her. I think she is the most beautiful girl in the world, even after 36 years of marriage. Perhaps she is not but I feel like it and I like to feel like it because it makes me feel good. This is the synergy of the "good vibes" we were talking about in the 60s.

... perhaps you understand now why I couldn't like the display of violence on those two movies?

I think that's a real magical way to live life, and probably more fun! With the results of the 'Message of Water' by Dr. Emoto (which has been done under double-blind conditions now, for you skeptics!) if we extrapolate that our thoughts may have effects on reality (no matter how miniscule), we might as well make them all good thoughts and great effects!

I totally understand your dislike of violence, but that's why I love the second one so much - no violence! It looks to the future instead of the past.

Right - we must intimately know and understand both so that we can overcome all of their inherent problems.

Thanks a lot for that CWG snippet, it's really touching (and confirms for me what I've said about not hating people like GWB and so on) - I'll have to see if my library has it, because my book list is getting huge!

Yeah What The Bleep!? is a good primer for a lot of this consciousness-is-primary business. I... liked what the Secret is trying to say, but the way the movie presented the theory was far too materialistic for my tastes. Wishing about getting a new bike, a new car or whatever. Good gems of insight here and there though.

I just listened to a very fascinating interview on the subject of water that I highly recommend. Although it may be a bit esoteric at parts, the idea I liked most is that perhaps hydrogen - the fundamental element of our universe - is the universal communication substance. One example this researcher gives is that in !!!1927!!! they did an experiment which confirms that bacteria in water on Earth react to solar flares from the sun instantaneously - even though the light takes about nine minutes to get here. He also compares how the sun and Jupiter have incredibly similar elemental makeups, even though their functions are so obviously different - he suggests that the underlying structure of hydrogen, and maybe all elements (which we see altered in Emoto's experiments) can be changed by intent, which produces measurably different waveforms of sound frequencies. There is a whole slew of interesting experiments in this interview, I highly suggest you all check it out.

Millsley wrote:One example this researcher gives is that in !!!1927!!! they did an experiment which confirms that bacteria in water on Earth react to solar flares from the sun instantaneously

Millsley, the idea that water has a "memory" is very old. In fact, it is the principle behind homeopathy. I don't mind but the more I add water to my whiskey, I don't get more drunk. Shouldn't I? According to homeopathy?

The problem with superluminal information is that it is hard to verify. How do you know it has reached destination instantly if you don't have a way to "see" it? The notion of "instantly" must include the notion of simultaneity in the universe and I thought we agreed that it didn't exist; everything is relative to the observer's frame.

Michel wrote:The problem with superluminal information is that it is hard to verify. How do you know it has reached destination instantly if you don't have a way to "see" it? The notion of "instantly" must include the notion of simultaneity in the universe and I thought we agreed that it didn't exist; everything is relative to the observer's frame.

In relativistic terms yes, but quantum mechanics has some properties that violates that, like entaglement.

Some experiments conclude that our brain processes information backwards on time, receiving stimulus instantly when we sense them.

fmonroy wrote:In relativistic terms yes, but quantum mechanics has some properties that violates that, like entaglement.

Perhaps but how do you prove it? How can you created an entangled particle, move one part of it to such a distance that the speed of light can be measured, then control if they are really instantly moving alike. Okay, imagine we create that particle and I take one part to the moon. We will be separated by about one second in time. I observe my particle and shout in the radio, "Hey Fmonroy, it's now a spin-up! How yours? spin-up or spin-down?" ... and you receive this message one second later. How are we to measure instantaneity?

That's the weird nature about quantum, can't be proved and can't be rejected

I got this from wikipedia:

quantum entanglement does not necessarily enable the transmission of classical information faster than the speed of light because a classical information channel is required to complete the process.

Different views of what is actually occurring in the process of quantum entanglement can be related to different interpretations of quantum mechanics. In the standard one, the Copenhagen interpretation, quantum mechanics is neither "real" (since measurements do not state, but instead prepare properties of the system) nor "local" (since the state vector comprises the simultaneous probability amplitudes for all positions).

Hum ... interesting, Fmonroy, but I must say that it is much easier to understand relativity than quantum. I can 'feel' relativity but quantum ... it's only words that comes in and out of my head. But then, after a life time of sex, drugs and rock & roll ...